Pose = crazy???

Ah… the shifting sands of the pose supporters.

I’ll let that go, but it’s the last part of your posting that really worries me. These “flaws” that all these great runners apparently have: are you seriously claiming that if they had adopted pose, they could have been better runners? If that is what you are saying, it’s a spectacularly extravagant claim. I don’t want to put words into your mouth - maybe you’re not saying that at all. Perhaps you’d like to expand on this and put all our minds at rest.

What the heck does that mean? I thought earlier arguments were based on the whole premise that either someone runs POSE or they don't. You are now saying that it is possible to 'kind of' run POSE?

Which part of Geb's running "very much ressembles POSE" or is "POSE-like" or "POSE-style"?

The part where he leans forward? (Everyone who runs, POSE or FAST or whatever leans forward.)

The part where he doesn't push off? (Examination of just about any picture of Geb shows he pushes off rather forcefully.)

The part where he falls forward? (The whole point of POSE's not pushing off is so that one can 'fall forward' and let gravity do the work. If he is pushing off, then he ain't falling forward.)

The part where he pulls his leg under his center of mass in advance of the next plant? (How anyone could get any form of forward motion, walking or running without moving their foot from back to front is a mystery to me.)

Great! I'd love to see the links! Just make sure that they demonstrate that at the instant Geb's foot looses contact with the ground, that his ankle is not fully flexed with the foot perpindicular to the ground and that his knee is not fully straightened out, as in several of those shots cited by myself and AlexS.

Anything not taken at that moment in his stride is obviously going to show a bent knee. I'd challenge you to show me anyone who can run without bending their knee for much of their stride without qualifying for Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks.

You mean the pics taken mid-point in his races? Not all the cites were of the last kick. Or perhaps you mean he is kicking with 50% of the race still to go?

So what has your point been? You and other POSERs have tried to suggest just about every elite runs POSE (Geb and Radcliffe having been specifically named off the top of my head). They obviously don't and I've yet to see proof that ANY top runner runs anything close to POSE as described by the authoritative posetech.com (I'm assuming descriptions posted on these threads where the definitions keep changing to fit the circumstances are only being written by certified 'experts' who don't really know POSE the way the website does.) Anyone who is pushing off is violating the most basic of POSE instructions. To say that someone who does run this way is also running POSE or POSE-like or with POSE-style kind of makes the whole concept of POSE being a special new way to run meaningless.

I don't profess to know why every elite runs as fast as they do. Maybe it's training. Maybe it's drugs. Maybe it's genetics. But it certainly ain't 'cause they are running POSE. THAT is my argument.

Asterix,

I did run against a cyclist, up hill, on icey road, in winter, now, I had other runners with me, who had to stop it was too slippy, and suggested to the coach, to run against me uphill on the section of icy road, who did, am I beat him? no you werent there, and from the sounds of it I wouldnt want you there, I run with all runners, and joggers, top club athletes, we all get along great, they either do or dont like the pose, but they dont pressure it on me, as I dont pressure it on them, but the proof is in the pudding, and they know how long it has taken me, and do not wish to take as long form scratch.

I have not been injured for 12 months now, it is only other things that stopped my consistancy of training, like having a severe viral infectino being rushed to hospital for an injection of antibiotics.

I can try and run the way I used to run, years ago, as a young 15 yr old girl winning county xcountry champs, and wining 1500ms, and 800ms. or I can run like I do now pose.

The thing is If I run like I did then, my old injury plays up, and my times are slower and hr goes up.

I know when I do pose right, I concentrate very hard on relaxing and pulling, I go faster with lower h/r

for example. I did 1k repeats, and when I got to my 5 1km, I felt tired, so I had to really concentrate, I did it faster than any other with a drop in h/r of 20bpm.

terrh said

"I’ll let that go, but it’s the last part of your posting that really worries me. These “flaws” that all these great runners apparently have: are you seriously claiming that if they had adopted pose, they could have been better runners? If that is what you are saying, it’s a spectacularly extravagant claim. I don’t want to put words into your mouth - maybe you’re not saying that at all. Perhaps you’d like to expand on this and put all our minds at rest."

I won't pretend to answer for Gatorade. But these arguments for Pose need to be put into perspective. The true lesson that Pose and Chi running and the book by Gordon Pirie and all the rest teach is that the mechanics of good running form are not something you are born with. No one is born with good running form any more than they are born with a good golf swing or a good back hand swing in tennis. Running is an aquired skill. We just don't recognize it as such. You can and should be the best runner mechanically that you can be.

This may seem pathetically obvious to those of you who ran in high school and college and were coached by professionals. Trust me, to those of us who have never been coached and learned everything from experience or the popular literature, it is anything but obvious.

Back to Geb. Just like a golfer or a tennis player, a runner can never have "perfect" form. It is something to strive for but never attain. Too many runners and coaches, if not most, think that God/nature puts the form into a runner and you can't change it. Can Geb's running form be improved? Of course it can, and saying so is not arrogance. No one is perfect. Look at Tiger Woods example. He took himself out of competition for +1 years to improve his swing. No one is telling him to "Just swing the stick Tiger!"

Arrogance and self confidence and high ego can go hand in hand. Imagine a golf teacher having the "arrogance" to think he could teach anything to the great Tiger woods. What if he failed and Tiger did not improve or was even injured? To risk that requires self confidence bordering on egotism. From a distance it will look like arrogance. It would require an absolute unshakable belief in the principles being taught and an impatience with anything that contradicts the teaching. From what I've heard and read, I think that describes Dr. Romanov pretty well.

"These “flaws” that all these great runners apparently have: are you seriously claiming that if they had adopted pose, they could have been better runners? "

This is as if you are asking - if all muslim runners would turn into catcholics, would they become faster? Apparently you mean this, cuz you still look at Pose as if it is a cult. Meanwhile adopting pose would mean getting rid fo some of their technical flaws, which could ( I say - COULD, and not OBLIGATORY WILL, cuz there are too many variables to consider) improve their times directly ( due to better movement economy) and indirectly ( due to less injuries, thus being able to train more).

I guess the main thing is whether one thinks there is ONE correct way to run - or are there MANY correct ways? I firmly believe there is one correct way( we could consider it THE IDEAL), and Pose is A WAY TO LEARN IT. The more you master it, the closer it is to ideal (I'm not sure if a runner with ideal form exists). And this was not invented by Romanov or someone else - the ideal of biomechanically fluent running existed long before Romanov was born, like Newton laws existed long before they were discovered. Romanov just made a system for TEACHING the technique - and his teaching includes lots of things that were proclaimed by many famous coaches: short time on support, quick turnover, high cadence, landing on the forefoot, not overstriding - with which of the things in this list you don't agree?

lara wrote:

I did run against a cyclist, up hill, on icey road, in winter, now, I had other runners with me, who had to stop it was too slippy, and suggested to the coach, to run against me uphill on the section of icy road, who did, am I beat him? no you werent there, and from the sounds of it I wouldnt want you there, I run with all runners, and joggers, top club athletes, we all get along great, they either do or dont like the pose, but they dont pressure it on me, as I dont pressure it on them, but the proof is in the pudding, and they know how long it has taken me, and do not wish to take as long form scratch.

While I'm pleased that you are happy with your running, I still don't see what pudding of proof we are talking about. I'm not pressuring you to quit POSE if that is what makes you happy. I am simply pointing out that things POSE claims to do and people POSE claims run POSE are fundamentally incorrect and wrong.

Whether you are aware of it or not, there is absolutely no way you can fall uphill. The fact the hill may be icy doesn't change the laws of gravity.

As anyone who has ever run on an icy surface has discovered, one must shorten ones stride and not push as much. But if you ever want to get any kind of forward motion (let alone uphill motion), you certainly have to push. Falling forward just ain't gonna cut it.

The key for icy running is to push just up to the point where you equal to frictional force arising from your normal force and the coefficient of static friction between your shoes and the surface.

A cyclist on an icy hill is just asking for trouble given the much smaller surface contact area of their tires and the increased moment resulting from the radius of the wheel and the gear they are in. I'd pick a runner POSE or not, over a cyclist on an icy slope any day.

Gatorade wrote:

Apparently you mean this, cuz you still look at Pose as if it is a cult.

JimFiore as listed them before, but look at any description of what traits define a cult and POSE meets a lot of them. You demonstrate one in this very post when you say "I firmly believe there is one correct way" to run.

A major flaw in your logic posted here is that if everyone, including elites, is not running as efficiently or effectively as they could be (but would improve if they followed POSE), then what is holding them back? Why would Geb not bother to tweak something so minor that could make him faster instead of hammering brutal track workouts trying to run through his flaws?

Why wouldn't perpetual 2nd place finisher Tergat use POSE as that final boost to get him past his arch nemesis? Are their coaches and advisors so incompetant that they refuse to bring forward something that could legitimately help their athlete achieve greater fame and fortune and fast times?

The fact that NONE of the major elites have subscribed to POSE or even run in anything approaching the way POSE is described on the website, is a significant indictment against the very claims you are making here.

Why do they ALL refuse to follow something so simple and potentially helpful?

Gatorade,

"This is as if you are asking - if all muslim runners would turn into catcholics, would they become faster? Apparently you mean this, cuz you still look at Pose as if it is a cult".

I love your analogies they’re so completely off the point.

Still at least you’ve put your cards on the table and apparently there is only one correct way to run – and guess what, it’s pose!

What a shame for poor old Seb Coe and El Gerrouj. If only pose had been around and all those silly little flaws could have been ironed out by Dr Romanov.

But wait, there’s still time for Bekele. You had better sent him a link to the posetech website so that he can order a dvd and book a clinic.

asterix wrote>>>>>>As to your last line, I'm not sure if you are asking me if you won or not. I really don't know since I wasn't there. Maybe you're asking me if you ran on ice uphill? Or maybe you're asking me if you ran against a cyclist? I have no idea. Maybe the cyclist was just passing by and didn't know you were racing him/her.

my point, Maybe the cyclist was just passing by and didn't know you were racing him/her.

and now you reply with

A cyclist on an icy hill is just asking for trouble given the much smaller surface contact area of their tires and the increased moment resulting from the radius of the wheel and the gear they are in. I'd pick a runner POSE or not, over a cyclist on an icy slope any day.

So at first you claimed the cyclist was passing me by, and I replied with full explanation, You replied with something about cylist would beat a runner anyhow.

So

I also told you about that I was running with non poseurs, well, they fell over and slipped, even with shorter strides, I tried to tell them to pull and not push, I tried with pushing and slipped!!!!!!!!!

Proof in the pudding yes!!!

I am only on here replying not because simple mindedness bothers me, but I am bored and my work is quiet, I find it quite hilarious to read the replies, and obviously obnoxious rude people on her, who probably wouldnt say boo to a ghost in real life.

and just waiting to here the reply on that, so funny, I wish I found this forum earlier, as I can be down right rude back to you all as your are to total strangers, as I am probably right in thinking you havent met Dr Romanov.

Lara, this post has finally brought me out of the woodwork.

I do have some sympathy for your point of view; the best way to find out if something works is to test it.

The problem is that the question for the anti-POSE people is not… 'Does POSE work?' … but … 'IS THE RATIONAL BEHIND POSE SOUND?’

I can see that you might wonder why it matters if (as you say) POSE works.

The point is that nobody likes a scammer and the way that Dr R presents his ideas reeks of a scam. A further reason to care is simple scientific curiosity and rigor. Some people want to know the truth. When they post a message informing people of what they believe to be the truth and their position is countered by someone it would seem they should be able to defend their position.

So to summarise: If you have no interest in discovering the scientific truth behind POSE then simply do not enter the debate. If you enter the debate then do not expect an unverified, uncontrolled case study to hold much weight in the face of some of the most basic principles of physics.

Iam david,

Sorry but I did not like the way the forum seemed to be going, yes thats fine, to debate things, I dont mind in the slightest, but to be name calling and slanderous is another, I have met Dr Romanov, and to also call him a scammer, which I know you mean in a not slanderous way, I would say a definate no, he is a very different person, with a very strong and good nature.

I could say alot of other extremeley nice things but on this forum it would be speaking on deaf ears.

I did find it slightly hilarious, for some of the posts, just as I think that allot of the debates are taken out of context's I am not qualified to debate the science behind it, nearly as so of alot of pose coaches are, but they find it labourious to post on such forum's as they find it whole heartidly depressive.

Huh? On an icy hill a runner is much more likely to beat a cyclist, whether they are running POSE or not (I make no qualifications if the cyclist is cycling POSE as I hear that book is in the works).

Since I didn't know what situation you were talking about, I posited that maybe this cyclist was just toodling around on his own, maybe going to the store and happened to pass by where you were about to run up this hill and was not aware you were racing them. I wasn't there, I don't know.

The post that follows yours by 'Iamdavid' far better enunciates by point than I ever good in my verbosity. Fundamental undeniable physics dictates that you can not fall up the hill. You MUST be pushing in order the generate consistent forward motion.

You may not think you are, but it is happening. When you've got a supposed revolutionary method like POSE claiming that they way they run is in complete contradiction to the laws of nature, then that is going to get people's backs up.

The fact that you and others continue to cling to your definitions and explanations that are in contravention to the laws that govern everything else in the world strongly suggests to bystanders that either you are ignorant or wilfully misleading people. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former rather than the latter but the fact POSERs continue to dodge evidence based critiques and mouth platitudes about opening our minds and 'proofs in the pudding' that aren't backed up is a big strike against you.

If all that is POSE is to tell people to land on their forefoot under their center of mass and to quickly get their foot off the ground and into the next stride, then great. I can find no fault in that.

But as long as the POSE website goes on about falling forward, letting gravity do the work, don't push and all these elites run POSE, then it is simply not trustworthy for ANY instruction or information.

I'll quote Iamdavid's key line:

"The problem is that the question for the anti-POSE people is not… 'Does POSE work?' … but … 'IS THE RATIONAL BEHIND POSE SOUND?’ "

The answer so far is a resounding NO.

Gatorade wrote:

First of all, did I ever say that Geb is a pose runner? All I said that his running very much ressembles Pose,

No what you said was this:

Gatorade wrote:

Haile Gereselassie is running almost perfect pose

I strongly suggest you re-read the thread and identify where myself, Iamdavid, JimFiore or any of the others have resorted to calling people names.

If you take a close look at the post you replied to, he said "the way that Dr R presents his ideas reeks of a scam". Note that he did not say he is a scammer, just that he was giving the appearance of being one.

He may not be aware that is how he is coming off and so can do himself a wonderful service by changing his marketing methodology so that he doesn't make up science about gravity pulling you forward or not pushing.

Well then perhaps you should do some basic research on the subject before throwing your voice into the mix. Most of the critiquers have tried to be quite clear and straightforward with the fundamental problems of the described POSE methodology. When people who don't know what they are talking about venture in, it just becomes problematic.

So while you're using the weekend to brush up on the science, I'll wish you and everyone else a happy long weekend (at least it is in Canada). Get out of the city and go for a run, be it POSE or not. Just don't think gravity is doing the work for you.

lara wrote:

...I did find it slightly hilarious, for some of the posts, just as I think that allot of the debates are taken out of context's I am not qualified to debate the science behind it, nearly as so of alot of pose coaches are, but they find it labourious to post on such forum's as they find it whole heartidly depressive.

I would actually like to know who among the POSE system of coaches or advocates are qualified to debate the science behind the method? Who is there who studied biomechanics or a related field prior to their exposure to POSE and then bought into the arguments of Dr. Romanov? My guess is that there is not one person. On the POSE messgae board Jack serves as kind of the Tinman of POSE, the ultimate authority to whom the newbees adress their questions. But Jack obviously has no idea what he's talking about, as evidenced from the exchange on falling uphill.

I've taken undergraduate and graduate level biomechanics courses, and know less than the esteemed Dr. Kram, who weighed in on this topic as well. Others with a much greater knowledge of physics and engineering than I have also have chimed in to debunk the more outlandish claims on which the technique is based. So, again, who has ventured in to the POSE universe with the background to critically analyze the mounds of writings and teachings, and has come away convinced?

Asterix wrote:

If you take a close look at the post you replied to, he said "the way that Dr R presents his ideas reeks of a scam". Note that he did not say he is a scammer, just that he was giving the appearance of being one. . . .

So while you're using the weekend to brush up on the science . . . .

I find that the way you present your posts are contemptuous, pedantic, and often rude. Please note, however, that I am not calling you contemputous, pedantic, or rude. You just write thing that make you present that way.

When logic and reason are met with indifference and ignorance, manners tend to fall by the wayside.

Asterix has cleanly picked apart and thoroughly demolished the shifting arguments and pseudoscience of the POSE crowd on this thread. Yet every single clear point he makes is met with another shift in the arguments of the proponents ("oh I didn't really MEAN what I said about Geb running POSE, I actually meant THIS") or obtuse denial ("I cant see any straight legs in those 37 photos you showed me of runners with straight legs").

I find the arguments that Asterix counters to ranging from disingenuous to ignorant to downright stupid. We are long past the point of good manners towards these shills and hacks. They either don't even understand the simple physics they use or they DO understand it and intentionally misuse it. Either way, the misinformation they spread is a disservice to runners everywhere, regardless of how much POSE actually has in common with actual good running form.

They deserve every rude and condescending comment they get, plus quite a bit more.

Keep it up Asterix.

Feet:

"We are long past the point of good manners towards these shills and hacks."

If that's the case, then try to stick your head into your ass, but prior to it make calculations if it will fit in.

"Gatorade wrote:

First of all, did I ever say that Geb is a pose runner? All I said that his running very much ressembles Pose,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No what you said was this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gatorade wrote:

Haile Gereselassie is running almost perfect pose"

I don't see how these two statements contradict each other: "Running very much ressembles Pose" and "is running almost perfect Pose".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------